My wife is in perinatal education. Blood vessels pop out on her forehead when I recite to her some of the things people say here on SciFo.

Click to expand...

Hope she doesn't pop a blood vessel with this

If you think she might don't quote it

My wise ancient guru once explained to me about babies

Grasshopper

If they are born looking perfect
And they seem to do all natural things like breathing drinking sleeping popping
And they have ten toes five on each foot in the right place and order
And ten fingers five on each hand in the right place and order
They are perfectBUT (here his voice went deep and ominous and 18th century)If they be born ahrrr with eleven toes (lightening flashed outside as the rain beat against the window and a creaking door slammed shut) (voice back to normal)
They are perfect with eleven toes

If nothing ever existed than in balance something must exist, and because 'nothing' is the opposite of 'anything', everything must exist. Our existence and every possible variation of existence, is an actuality of the balance created by nothing existing.

Click to expand...

An absence of everything (i.e., "nothing") isn't applicable if there's a "principle of balance" in effect / existing.

A literal absence of all law, regulating principle, government or logic is also the absence of impossibility. Thus with no restrictions and limitations, not only "something" would be allowable but every possibility.

But since causality and temporal orientations of past, present, and future would be absent as all the rest... To speak of "nothing" being prior to "something", or rationally beside each other in balance, or absence causing presence, or whatever else, is accordingly meaningless or unnecessary.

If these wanderings serve any slight purpose, it would apparently be to clarify why "non-existence existing" is both dissonant / incoherent and unneeded / inutile (should that not already have been obvious to us).

An absence of everything (i.e., "nothing") isn't applicable if there's a "principle of balance" in effect / existing.

A literal absence of all law, regulating principle, government or logic is also the absence of impossibility. Thus with no restrictions and limitations, not only "something" would be allowable but every possibility.

But since causality and temporal orientations of past, present, and future would be absent as all the rest... To speak of "nothing" being prior to "something", or rationally beside each other in balance, or absence causing presence, or whatever else, is accordingly meaningless or unnecessary.

If these wanderings serve any slight purpose, it would apparently be to clarify why "non-existence existing" is both dissonant / incoherent and unneeded / inutile (should that not already have been obvious to us).

Click to expand...

Do you think there might be a blindfolded being out there holding a set of balance scales like Justice weighing up NOTHING / SOMETHING?

I try very hard to base any assessment I make of MR (or anybody else here, for that matter) on what they write.

In MR's case, when I say that he believes in certain types of "woo", that is because he himself has posted (often in detail) about those beliefs. I have made significant effort to engage him in discussions of whether his beliefs on such things are reasonable or not, and we have had arguments back and forth about various facts and interpretations. This is different from making ad hominem attacks.

You will also see, if you look through my posts to MR, that on many occasions I have acknowledged his intelligence and have lamented his unwillingness to applying that intelligence to think critically about some of his professed beliefs.

MR's self-described willingness to accept all eyewitness accounts of things like alien spaceships at face value as good evidence that earth-visiting aliens exist (for example) makes him, in my opinion, naive - gullible if you prefer. But note: this assessement is based on hundreds of back-and-forth posts between myself and him. If I say he is gullible, I do not mean it as an insult, and I have in fact been quite careful to explain to him exactly what I mean and why I am saying it.

You might notice that I spend a lot of time asking MR questions about his views. I don't want to assume; I'd rather hear from him what he believes.

MR's self-described willingness to accept all eyewitness accounts of things like alien spaceships at face value as good evidence that earth-visiting aliens exist (for example) makes him, in my opinion, naive - gullible if you prefer. But note: this assessement is based on hundreds of back-and-forth posts between myself and him. If I say he is gullible, I do not mean it as an insult, and I have in fact been quite careful to explain to him exactly what I mean and why I am saying it.
.

Lady Justice, of course, would be a prosopopoeia confined to symbolizing moral force in judicatory practices. But there are arguably more general emblems which ancient logicians or their later groupies had for denoting their preoccupations with opposites. A unity of opposites theme would apparently-- via its very nature -- entail a balancing act, too. ("Nothing" and "something" would only be one choice of plug-ins for its paired placeholders, though, among many others).

"Nothing" in a global and absolute sense would mean even the absence of a container or background that was empty of substantive content (neither classic space nor inferred governing principles susceptible to analysis). Thereby "nothing" is kicked out of the tangible / actual to merely refer to an imaginary counter-possibility [concept] whose purpose is to be a rational ballast for the concept of "something".

IOW, a particular scheme of human thinking might demand "nothing" as an abstract complement to its concept of "something", but not human-independent affairs. If literally reified in the context of the latter, nothing would sport "absence of impossibility" as a consequence of its lack of laws and lack of restrictions package. Ergo "something" (likewise reified) is not barred from being the case or would just as much still be the "default" setting. (Ordinary language seems to need awkward, figurative expressions at times just to have verbal objects to manipulate around for this bizarre, inutile subject.)

MR's self-described willingness to accept all eyewitness accounts of things like alien spaceships at face value as good evidence that earth-visiting aliens exist (for example) makes him, in my opinion, naive - gullible if you prefer.

Click to expand...

Taking multiple eyewitness accounts at their word is not gullible. It is going by the evidence, the same way detectives and reporters do with crimes and accidents.

But note: this assessement is based on hundreds of back-and-forth posts between myself and him. If I say he is gullible, I do not mean it as an insult, and I have in fact been quite careful to explain to him exactly what I mean and why I am saying it.

Click to expand...

It is an ad hom meant to discredit me with some character flaw or mental disability. If I am a gullible person, then what I say is evidenced and real cannot be trusted. I am essentially written off as a source of accurate observations. You have undermined my credibility in order to refute my claims.

Lady Justice, of course, would be a prosopopoeia confined to symbolizing moral force in judicatory practices. But there are arguably more general emblems which ancient logicians or their later groupies had for denoting their preoccupations with opposites. A unity of opposites theme would apparently-- via its very nature -- entail a balancing act, too. ("Nothing" and "something" would only be one choice of plug-ins for its paired placeholders, though, among many others).

"Nothing" in a global and absolute sense would mean even the absence of a container or background that was empty of substantive content (neither classic space nor inferred governing principles susceptible to analysis). Thereby "nothing" is kicked out of the tangible / actual to merely refer to an imaginary counter-possibility [concept] whose purpose is to be a rational ballast for the concept of "something".

IOW, a particular scheme of human thinking might demand "nothing" as an abstract complement to its concept of "something", but not human-independent affairs. If literally reified in the context of the latter, nothing would sport "absence of impossibility" as a consequence of its lack of laws and lack of restrictions package. Ergo "something" (likewise reified) is not barred from being the case or would just as much still be the "default" setting. (Ordinary language seems to need awkward, figurative expressions at times just to have verbal objects to manipulate around for this bizarre, inutile subject.)